Skip to content

refactor: use regexp-groups to simplify ignores #2776

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 9, 2025

Conversation

ST-DDT
Copy link
Contributor

@ST-DDT ST-DDT commented Jul 1, 2025

Implement idea suggested here: #2773 (comment)


Excluding/Ignoring things is a common task in rules. This PR creates a helper that hides all the string[] -> regexp[] -> boolean logic in a simple helper function.

const options = context.options[0] || {}
const { ignore = [] } = options
const ignoreGroupMatcher = regexp.toRegExpGroupMatcher(ignore)

...

 if (
  ignoreGroupMatcher(
    componentName,
    casing.pascalCase(componentName),
    casing.kebabCase(componentName)
  )
) {
  // skip
  return
}

The current project contains at least 9 instances of .map(toRegExp) + a few more using more verbose syntax.

If the general design of this feature is accepted, I will convert the other locations to the new feature and mark this PR as POC.

I'm not super happy with the method name and jsdocs, so any input would be appreciated.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jul 1, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: b56eec9

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Copy link
Member

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the idea! It would be great to see it used a lot more in the whole codebase 🙂

@ST-DDT
Copy link
Contributor Author

ST-DDT commented Jul 2, 2025

I like the idea! I would be great to see it used a lot more in the whole codebase 🙂

Does that count as

the general design of this feature is accepted

so that I should start converting the rest of the applicable locations?

@FloEdelmann
Copy link
Member

I should start converting the rest of the applicable locations?

That would be great! Do you want to want to give it a go?

@ST-DDT ST-DDT marked this pull request as ready for review July 3, 2025 20:57
@ST-DDT ST-DDT changed the title refactor: use regexp-groups to simplify ignores (POC) refactor: use regexp-groups to simplify ignores Jul 3, 2025
@ST-DDT
Copy link
Contributor Author

ST-DDT commented Jul 3, 2025

Ready for review/merge.

There are a few locations left, that either use plain string[] ignore lists or just use a single ignore pattern, that I haven't touched, but I think they can be enhanced in later PRs on demand.

Copy link
Member

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very cool, thank you! 🙂
Looks good to me now.

There are a few locations left, that either use plain string[] ignore lists or just use a single ignore pattern, that I haven't touched, but I think they can be enhanced in later PRs on demand.

Would you like to submit a follow-up PR for this? That would be awesome! 🚀

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann requested review from ota-meshi and waynzh July 9, 2025 13:05
@FloEdelmann
Copy link
Member

Don't be surprised, I'll try out the Copilot reviewer feature now 😄

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann requested a review from Copilot July 9, 2025 13:06
Copilot

This comment was marked as outdated.

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann requested a review from Copilot July 9, 2025 13:15
Copy link
Member

@waynzh waynzh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Thank you!

Copy link

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces a new helper toRegExpGroupMatcher to streamline ignore/allow logic by consolidating multiple string[] → RegExp[] → boolean patterns into a single matcher function. It also extends toRegExp to accept flag additions/removals and refactors existing rule files to use the new helper.

  • Adds toRegExpGroupMatcher and updates toRegExp signature in lib/utils/regexp.js
  • Replaces many .map(toRegExp) and custom buildMatcher usages in rule files with toRegExpGroupMatcher
  • Adds comprehensive tests for both toRegExp and toRegExpGroupMatcher

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 20 out of 20 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
tests/lib/utils/regexp.js Expanded tests for toRegExp and new toRegExpGroupMatcher
lib/utils/regexp.js Added toRegExpGroupMatcher, enhanced toRegExp with flag handling
lib/rules/* Refactored ignore/allow patterns to use toRegExpGroupMatcher and removed custom matcher logic
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

lib/utils/regexp.js:56

  • The JSDoc for toRegExpGroupMatcher could be expanded to note that input patterns may be regex-like strings (e.g., '/^foo/i') and that flags are handled by the underlying toRegExp helper.
 * Converts an array of strings to a singular function to match any of them.

lib/utils/regexp.js:62

  • [nitpick] The name 'toRegExpGroupMatcher' is quite verbose; consider a shorter, more intention-revealing name (e.g., 'matchAnyPattern' or 'anyPatternMatcher') to improve readability.
function toRegExpGroupMatcher(patterns = []) {

@FloEdelmann
Copy link
Member

Should we mention refactorings in the changelog? If no, then no changeset is necessary.

@waynzh
Copy link
Member

waynzh commented Jul 9, 2025

Should we mention refactorings in the changelog? If no, then no changeset is necessary.

Make sense to me, users don’t really care about internal code shuffling, so we don’t need to include it.

@FloEdelmann FloEdelmann merged commit a2e49a7 into vuejs:master Jul 9, 2025
12 checks passed
@ST-DDT ST-DDT deleted the reafactor/regexp-group branch July 9, 2025 13:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants